CSET SPANISH SUBTEST 2 EXAM PREP
STUDY SHEET 2026 PRACTICE SOLUTION
FULL ANSWER KEY SOLVED QUESTIONS
⩥ Plessy v. Ferguson. Answer: a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court issued in 1896. It upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation
laws for public facilities as long as the segregated facilities were equal in
quality - a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal.
Although the decision was related to the segregation of African
American students, in many parts of the country Native American,
Asian, and Hispanic students were also routinely segregated. "
⩥ Brown v. Board of Education. Answer: REVERSAL of Plessy v.
Ferguson; 58 years later in 1954; Like Plessy, focused on the segregation
of African American students. But by ruling that states are responsible
for providing "equal educational opportunities" for all students made
bilingual education for ELLs more feasible.
⩥ Independent School District v. Salvatierra, Alvarez v. Lemon Grove,
and Méndez v. Westminster School District. Answer: Addresses
Segregation A few lesser known lower level cases concerning the
segregation of Hispanic student predate Brown.
⩥ Independent School District v. Salvatierra (1930). Answer: Mexican
American parents in the small border town of Rio, Texas, brought suit
against the school district over segregation. The court sided with the
,school district that argued the segregation was necessary to teach the
students English. This argument did not hold, however, for two similar
cases in California: Alvarez v. Lemon Grove (1931) and Méndez v.
Westminster School District (1947). The judge in Alvarez noted that
segregation was not beneficial for the students' English language
development and the success of the Méndezcase helped set the stage for
Brown.
⩥ Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson and Johnson v. San Francisco Unified
School District. Answer: Addresses Segregation In some instances,
desegregation efforts made it more difficult. In San Francisco, for
example, Chinese Americans fought a desegregation order that would
force students out of neighborhood schools that provided bilingual
English Chinese programs for newcomer Chinese ELL students. The
Chinese community took the case to court in 1971 and it was appealed to
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Johnson v. San Francisco Unified
School District. In 1974, the court ruled against the Chinese community,
declaring simply Brown applies to races.
⩥ Meyers v. Nebraska. Answer: The Right of Communities to Teach
Their Native Languages to Their Children In the early 1900s, German
communities typically ran their own private schools where students
received instruction in both German and English. Then, in 1919,
Nebraska passed the Siman Act, The state court ruled that the act could
not prevent schools from providing German language instruction outside
of the hours of regular school study. In response, the parochial schools
taught German during an extended recess period. Language restrictionist
policymakers sought to close the loopholes in the law and fined Robert
Meyers $25 fine for teaching Bible stories to 10 yr old children in
,German. The case, Meyers v. Nebraska(1923), went to Supreme Court,
which consolidated this case with similar cases from Ohio and Idaho.
Supreme Court struck down the states' restrictive legislation, ruling that
whereas state governments can legislate the language used for
instruction in schools, states may not pass laws that attempt to prevent
communities from offering private language classes outside of the
regular school system. Made it clear that the 14th Amendment provides
protection for language minorities, does not endorse it though.
⩥ Siman Act 1919 Nebraska. Answer: made it illegal for any school,
public or private, to provide any foreign language instruction to students
below the 8th grade. Associated with Meyers vs Nebraska.
⩥ Farrington v. Tokushige. Answer: The Right of Communities to Teach
Their Native Languages to Their Children Hawaii in 1927, the court
offered further protections of after-school community language
programs after attempts by education authorities to put restrictions on
Japanese and Chinese heritage language programs. Case essentially
about parents' rights rather than language rights; still signs of negative
attitudes toward the "foreign population." Indeed, Hawaii tried yet again
to limit private foreign language instruction. When the Chinese
communities after World War II sought to restart their private language
schools, the state passed the "Act Regulating the Teaching of Foreign
Languages to Children." Part of the state's rationale was the need to
"protect children from the harm of learning a foreign language." The
Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting schools to teach in a language
other than English violates constitutional rights protected under the Fifth
Amendment
, ⩥ Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Kok Po. Answer: The Right of
Communities to Teach Their Native Languages to Their Children
(1947), the state court struck down the statute, rejecting the state's claim
and arguing that, at least for "the brightest" students, study of a foreign
language can be beneficial. The case was decided on the basis of
Farrington and, once again, had more to do with parents' rights in
directing the education of their children than with language rights.
Despite agreement in the courts about the need for states to Americanize
minorities and their right to control the language used for instruction in
public schools, minority communities have a clear right to offer private
language classes in which their children can learn and maintain their
home languages. Thus, the common practice of language-minority
communities today in offering heritage language programs after school
and on weekends is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
⩥ Xenophobia toward German and Japanese Americans during World
War I and World War II. Answer: succeeded where attempts at language
restrictive legislation failed. When Germany and later Japan became war
enemies of the United States, the number of U.S. schools that provided
instruction in these languages dropped dramatically, largely because of
fears by members of these communities that such instruction would lead
others to question their loyalty to the United States
⩥ Lau v. Nichols. Answer: Equal Educational Opportunities for ELLs
1974 Supreme Court case that resulted in perhaps the most important
court decision regarding the education of language minority students;
brought forward by Chinese American students in the San Francisco
STUDY SHEET 2026 PRACTICE SOLUTION
FULL ANSWER KEY SOLVED QUESTIONS
⩥ Plessy v. Ferguson. Answer: a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court issued in 1896. It upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation
laws for public facilities as long as the segregated facilities were equal in
quality - a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal.
Although the decision was related to the segregation of African
American students, in many parts of the country Native American,
Asian, and Hispanic students were also routinely segregated. "
⩥ Brown v. Board of Education. Answer: REVERSAL of Plessy v.
Ferguson; 58 years later in 1954; Like Plessy, focused on the segregation
of African American students. But by ruling that states are responsible
for providing "equal educational opportunities" for all students made
bilingual education for ELLs more feasible.
⩥ Independent School District v. Salvatierra, Alvarez v. Lemon Grove,
and Méndez v. Westminster School District. Answer: Addresses
Segregation A few lesser known lower level cases concerning the
segregation of Hispanic student predate Brown.
⩥ Independent School District v. Salvatierra (1930). Answer: Mexican
American parents in the small border town of Rio, Texas, brought suit
against the school district over segregation. The court sided with the
,school district that argued the segregation was necessary to teach the
students English. This argument did not hold, however, for two similar
cases in California: Alvarez v. Lemon Grove (1931) and Méndez v.
Westminster School District (1947). The judge in Alvarez noted that
segregation was not beneficial for the students' English language
development and the success of the Méndezcase helped set the stage for
Brown.
⩥ Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson and Johnson v. San Francisco Unified
School District. Answer: Addresses Segregation In some instances,
desegregation efforts made it more difficult. In San Francisco, for
example, Chinese Americans fought a desegregation order that would
force students out of neighborhood schools that provided bilingual
English Chinese programs for newcomer Chinese ELL students. The
Chinese community took the case to court in 1971 and it was appealed to
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Johnson v. San Francisco Unified
School District. In 1974, the court ruled against the Chinese community,
declaring simply Brown applies to races.
⩥ Meyers v. Nebraska. Answer: The Right of Communities to Teach
Their Native Languages to Their Children In the early 1900s, German
communities typically ran their own private schools where students
received instruction in both German and English. Then, in 1919,
Nebraska passed the Siman Act, The state court ruled that the act could
not prevent schools from providing German language instruction outside
of the hours of regular school study. In response, the parochial schools
taught German during an extended recess period. Language restrictionist
policymakers sought to close the loopholes in the law and fined Robert
Meyers $25 fine for teaching Bible stories to 10 yr old children in
,German. The case, Meyers v. Nebraska(1923), went to Supreme Court,
which consolidated this case with similar cases from Ohio and Idaho.
Supreme Court struck down the states' restrictive legislation, ruling that
whereas state governments can legislate the language used for
instruction in schools, states may not pass laws that attempt to prevent
communities from offering private language classes outside of the
regular school system. Made it clear that the 14th Amendment provides
protection for language minorities, does not endorse it though.
⩥ Siman Act 1919 Nebraska. Answer: made it illegal for any school,
public or private, to provide any foreign language instruction to students
below the 8th grade. Associated with Meyers vs Nebraska.
⩥ Farrington v. Tokushige. Answer: The Right of Communities to Teach
Their Native Languages to Their Children Hawaii in 1927, the court
offered further protections of after-school community language
programs after attempts by education authorities to put restrictions on
Japanese and Chinese heritage language programs. Case essentially
about parents' rights rather than language rights; still signs of negative
attitudes toward the "foreign population." Indeed, Hawaii tried yet again
to limit private foreign language instruction. When the Chinese
communities after World War II sought to restart their private language
schools, the state passed the "Act Regulating the Teaching of Foreign
Languages to Children." Part of the state's rationale was the need to
"protect children from the harm of learning a foreign language." The
Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting schools to teach in a language
other than English violates constitutional rights protected under the Fifth
Amendment
, ⩥ Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Kok Po. Answer: The Right of
Communities to Teach Their Native Languages to Their Children
(1947), the state court struck down the statute, rejecting the state's claim
and arguing that, at least for "the brightest" students, study of a foreign
language can be beneficial. The case was decided on the basis of
Farrington and, once again, had more to do with parents' rights in
directing the education of their children than with language rights.
Despite agreement in the courts about the need for states to Americanize
minorities and their right to control the language used for instruction in
public schools, minority communities have a clear right to offer private
language classes in which their children can learn and maintain their
home languages. Thus, the common practice of language-minority
communities today in offering heritage language programs after school
and on weekends is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
⩥ Xenophobia toward German and Japanese Americans during World
War I and World War II. Answer: succeeded where attempts at language
restrictive legislation failed. When Germany and later Japan became war
enemies of the United States, the number of U.S. schools that provided
instruction in these languages dropped dramatically, largely because of
fears by members of these communities that such instruction would lead
others to question their loyalty to the United States
⩥ Lau v. Nichols. Answer: Equal Educational Opportunities for ELLs
1974 Supreme Court case that resulted in perhaps the most important
court decision regarding the education of language minority students;
brought forward by Chinese American students in the San Francisco
